The Hindu 28.10.2010
High Court Bench directs transport corporations to pay costs of Rs.30,000
Mohamed Imranullah S.
| For not providing an alternative employment to disabled employees |
“Such employment should not be given as a fresh entrant or in a lower scale of pay”
“The transport corporation is yet to come up with any useful proposal”
MADURAI: The Madras High Court Bench here on Tuesday directed Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (TNSTC) as well as State Express Transport Corporation (SETC) to pay costs to the tune of Rs.30,000 for discharging from service six of its employees who acquired medical disabilities.
Allowing all six writ petitions filed by the victims seeking reinstatement, Justice K. Chandru said:
“This court is constrained to order cost because the transport corporations are not only insensitive to the cases on hand but in spite of the clear mandate by a Parliamentary law, they had driven their employees to move this court when there is no warrant for driving them to do so.”
The judge pointed out that Section 47 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 states that no establishment should dispense with or reduce in rank, an employee who acquired a disability during his service.
Dealing with the issue on several occasions, various Division Benches of the High Court had held that such persons should be given alternative employment along with protection of their salary and status.
Such employment should not be given as a fresh entrant or in a lower scale of pay.
“When a worker by ignorance of his right agrees to go on medical invalidation, his ignorance cannot be taken advantage of by the Corporation… A worker even if he agrees by a settlement, such settlement is invalid in the light of the non obstante clause found under 1995 Act,” the judge said.
Mr. Justice Chandru also pulled up the transport corporations for not creating an internal authority comprising senior officials, as directed by him in another writ petition on September 27, to alleviate the grievances of their employees who face occupational hazards of facing numerous accidents.
“The transport corporation is yet to come up with any useful proposal. The standing counsel for the Corporation informed that a Board meeting will have to be convened which may be held only in December, 2010. This is hardly expected of a public sector company which must have a corporate responsibility at least for its own workers,” the judge said.
He went on to state: “It is also rather unfortunate that in all these writ petitions, though respondents have been served (with notices), they have not come forward to file counter affidavits except in three cases.
